SEO does pay off...

I never said I was angry. I just said Google was broken. Their search results fluctate wildly from day to day. That's called inconsistency. And a mechanism that produces inconsistent results can be said to be broken.

 

Quite right. I said you were cranky first, in another thread, and then I said you were angry -- because Google won't rank your sites higher or make it easier for you to circumvent the ranking process.

Nonsense. We've been all around this block many times. Google isn't broken and at least in the types of searches I do (which are frequent) I don't see SERPs that "fluctate wildly from day to day". You may see wild fluctuations in how Google reports backlinks or number of pages indexed for a site but that's by design, in my opinion.

 

What did I say earlier about close-minded. I rest my case.

 

I see. Following Lewis Carroll, you have an idiosyncratic definition of "close-minded" -- meaning "disagrees with compar".

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/treatments/jungian/projection.htm

 

I'm with minstrel on this one. I do not believe google is broken. It is not perfect, but it's not broken. I do see some of my terms fluctuate rather significantly, but for the most part, my rankings remain fairly constant with only slight movement either up or down.

 

Well it very much depends on your definition of "broken". Broken doesn't have to mean smashed to pieces. I'm using it in the technical sense of failing to produce logical and consistent results.

You seem to confirm this in part by your own observations.

 

How does what mopacfan said support your claim that Google is "failing to produce logical and consistent results"?

 

Those that see relatively stable rankings say that Google is fine, those that see their rankings fluctuate wildly or falling into a deep abyss say it is broken.
It's a hard call to make but from the posts here and on other forums the majority support the broken or Google is crap camp.
I have read articles from a couple of the gurus who also support the Google is broken theory.
What do the silent majority of internet marketers think or are they blissfully unaware of Googles machinations

I often wonder if the people who frequent the Forums are in the main experts in their field, or in the case of Digital Point are the majority at the higher level of SEO and marketing via the internet or people at the bottom of the learning curve such as myself.
I only ask because in the fields I know very well I am amazed at the amount of information given out by well meaning people that is absolute crap. The ensuring results are at best wasting peoples time and at worst costing them a lot of $.

Cyclops.

 

There's a sampling problem there. As with all things, the people who are unhappy with something are far more vocal than the people who are happy.

Suppose I started a thread titled, "Google is fine again today - Nothing is happening", how much attention would it attract? But if I start a thread saying, "Something is broken at Google - I know this because my wonderful website, which I think should be #1, is listed #1509", you can bet there will be 20 people in a minute jumping in to say, "Yeah! That's happening to me too!".

 

Excellent point Mistrel.

This is why I pay little attention to threads where a compnay is laid into by a few people. The first person posts their opinion (Paypal Sucks) on a popular forum and those searching to air their grievances inevitably find the thread and pile it on. No one checks in and says "I got what I paid for". If they did they would be attacked.

Also when it comes to SEO, if people are ranking well and making money they go to the forums less. Think of most peoples first post in a forum

"ARGHHHH HEEEELP Google hates ME!!!!"

They went there because they had a problem. You don't see peoples first Post:

"We have had a good year. Our rankings have held steady and we have grown 2%"

That doesn't happen because they can't be bothered. These type of complaint posts are most times as valid as Alexas rankings (for similar reasons I might add)

Cheers

PS Exceptions are the Alex Doyle threads where concrete proof is given, etc

 

You guys can fight with each other until kingdom comes, but Google's algo's are secret, they do adjust them for whatever reasons they feel like adjusting them for, the changes have been going on for quite some time (major ones since 11/2003-so called Florida update).

Studies like the McDar thread that come up with research that confounds those who have studied it confirm that folks just have a hard time figuring out exactly what Google does and why they do it.

Everyone has differing opinions and mostly that is what they are, but some folks who study the engine like Compar may have a better idea than others in my opinion.

It is always good to see a debate on these issues, I have my thoughts on why these things happen, but do not want to upset folks so I will just keep it to myself.

 

>>>There's a sampling problem there. As with all things, the people who are unhappy with something are far more vocal than the people who are happy.<<<

Of course theres a sampling problem, and not just related to the above......the percent of people who post on forums is very very small compared to the actual number using the internet as a business and who rely in part on search engines to drive traffic to that business. Thats why I mentioned the silent majority.

Cyclops.

 

Okay. I thought you were implying in your previous post that you accepted the "Google is broken" conclusion based on post majority:

 

they ARE blissfully unaware of Googles machinations

 

Minstrel,

This is the part of your Google defense that I fine very insulting.

I have sites -- more correctly pages -- in the top 10. I have pages that don't seem like they are ever going to move, and I have pages that get kicked around from time to time by Google's machinations. But never once have I sited these pages as evidence of Googles "broken" state. And I resent your implication that this is the only reason I think it is broken.

Forget any page that I am directly connected with and simply look at the mcdar page. In my view it is impossible to explain the movement of this page other than the machinations of a system that isn't working correctly or consistently -- hence broken.

 

You are quoting from my reply to a post by Cyclops, compar. It wasn't about you. Actually, most of what I post isn't about you.

 

I understand that. And an additional insult wasn't necessary. But what you said to Cyclops is what you have accused me of in the past. I just used the Cyclops response because it was yet another iteration of your demeaning and insulting put down of anyone who doesn't think Google is God.

 

I can see where both of you are coming from (compar and minstrel). I think the reason you feel that google is 'broken' (which is used for lack of a better word) is due in part to the fact that you see great results for some terms which never move, and then have other results which go off the deepend from time to time- I believe this is because you assume (Whether or not you think about it) you are doing the same optimization to all of the pages and they should all react the same because the links come from the same places, etc. Except there are factors not seen yet making those pages not as stable as your other very successful ones.

I've had the same issues- still do for a lot of terms.

 

Schlottke,

I appreciate your attempt at mediation, but you are really only saying what Minstrel has said only a little more politely. Sure we have to have some experience or data on which to attempt to make a judgement about Googles operation. But I haven't done this as a someone whining about my own pages. Minstrel seem to suggest that all the nay sayers are just poor loosers who have an inflated view of the importance of their own pages.

That just isn't true in my case and I resent anyone who perpetuately denigrates my arguments and logic by demeaning my motivation. As I said in my last email I think ample evidence of Google's irrational inconsistent broken state is offered by the mcdar page.

Most people acknowledge that this has been about as closely controlled an experiment as is practical to do. We have avoided doing two or three different things all at the same time where ever and when ever possible. But look at the history of Google's SERP placement of this page over the last 6 months , I can't see how any thinking person can come to any conclusion except that Google was irrational and incomprehensible.

Talk to McDar, talk to Foxy, talk to anyone who has been closely involved with that experiement. The will tell you that the only possible explanation for the oddyssey that page has been on is a "broken" google.

 

Not to attack anyone, butthe copyediting and copywriting is WAAYYYY overpriced. How can anyone who doesn't have expertise in copywriting ie. direct
marketing style salesletters charge that much for copy?